Manchin cracks on guns
OK, so I voted for a Democrat in the elections last month – it was Joe Manchin for Senator from West Virginia. He was good on guns and Cap & Trade – it took me several minutes to decide what to do when I voted for him, but I did it, mostly because he introduced the Federal CCW bill in the Senate. But, it only took me a month to regret it. According to the Washington Post, he cracked this weekend on guns with the most vacuous line from the anti-gun fascists;
“I dont know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Manchin told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” ”I don’t know anyone that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”
I don’t need 30 rounds to go hunting. In fact I don’t hunt anymore, but I own more guns that I’ve ever owned. But I just ordered some more high-capacity magazines this weekend, because I want to – no other reason. So Manchin was the first Democrat who I’ve voted for since Jimmy Carter, and it looks like he’s the last one, too.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Someone needs to remind the gentleman that Washington didn’t cross the Delaware to get to his duck blind.
I’m sticking to crossbows. They’re ONLY for hunting. Right?
Stand by friends. The roar from Feinstein and company is about to get louder. Expect to see a repeat of the picture of gun ban Diane shaking an AR and declaring “killing machines”. She actually owes her entire political career to Twinkie defense Dan White and the shooting in San Francisco, you’d think she’d be more grateful.
Apparently the Founders were only concerned with hunters rights when they penned the Second Amendment, being as how they had just kicked of the ass of the world’s greatest superpower at the time… /sarcasm
Weird…I wonder what all that recreational shooting with my AMD-65 is about? Surely I must not have any fun using that right? Because of its 30 round magazine and high caliber?
Just sent him a response on this one. I will keep you posted on what comes back.
C’mon Jonn! Those are “standard capacity” magazines!
Not used for hunting? I suggest they watch Yukon men.
Dear Joe and other assorted ri-tards,
I’m gonna let you in on a little secret. .223 rifles are fucking AWESOME when it comes to varmint (rabbit, squirrel, coyote, groundhog, etc.) hunting…they have a better range than a .17 HMR, better muzzle velocity, flatter trajectory, and far greater energy to knock down those bigger critters.
Not used for hunting? Maybe on YOUR fucking planet.
Sadly enough, this line of thinking is prevalent even among otherwise pro-gun firearm owners. A coworker and I were discussing this topic this morning after he made a similar statement: “no one needs a gun like that”. Going waaaaaay back, I had a cop express his opinion that “civilians don’t need guns like this” to the judge just before a concealed weapon charge was upheld. Ironically, I was found not guilty of concealing a snubnose revolver, but the “evil” weapon–a pistol gripped Mossberg–sealed a guilty verdict. That was the last time I told a cop I had firearms in the vehicle if they weren’t already on the dash.
Anyway, as I explained to my naive coworker, he may not use an AR-15 to hunt but that should not preclude the ownership of such weapons. I’ve outgrown my love for them (though I still plan to replace the FAL one day, but years ago I owned a few scary black rifles and plenty of high capacity magazines to go with them. A 75-round drum in a Kalashnikov is a joy to blow through at the range.
My guess is he is just seeking political cover for when the proposed AWB dies in committee.
Unless you think that suddenly a majority of reps from pro-gun districts (which includes quite a few dems, BTW) will volunteer to committ career suicide, there is zero chance of an AWB getting through the House.
In fact, I think there’s probably zero chance of it getting through the senate. Yes, there are some weak-kneed R’s in the Senate, but there are also D’s who come from pro-gun states who are up for reelection in 2014.
All politicians know the lesson of 1994 – you vote in favor of gun control, you lose your job.
And consider that 1994 was pre-internet. Now there’s a huge ability to rally people for a district or state election all the way across the country.
Again, unless you believe that a majority of gun owners in the US are willing to roll over and see a curtailment of their rights, this proposed AWB will go nowhere.
#2
Or zombies!
I have 5-round magazines for my HK91 and my AR15. When I hunted, I used the HK91 with the 5-round magazine because that was in accordance with Texas Game laws.
However, I have a numer of 20-round magazines for the HK, and a number of 30-round and 20-round magazines for the AR.
Why because I can. Its no one’s business why.
BTW, Teddy Kenedy killed more people that I.
been some pro-gun Dems and anti-gun Repubs.. think most (like Specter) of the latter went over to the dark side eventually though.
I’ll vote for gun control if – and only if – they come up with a foolproof way to make sure the idiots who commit this kind of thing are the ones affected by it, and whatever they propose leaves law abiding citizens (you know, the ones who DON’T commit crimes) the hell alone. Until then… anyone happen to know how many armed bodyguards people like Schumer, Feinstein,Bloomberg, et al happen to use? First we need to disarm THEM.
#13 Come on, we all know Jabba the Kennedy regretted his actions if he ever came out of his drunken stupor to remember… Wait, did he ever come out of that drunken stupor? Was kind of hard to tell between the drunken sort and his normal stupor I guess.
Well, by the time he sobered up enough, the brain cancer had pretty much eaten what hadn’t been pickled first.
I’ll be here all week–try the waitress, tip the veal!
Fuck them and fuck everybody willing to trade away one iota of my essential liberties for someone else’s temporary security.
Somewhere around 52 million gun-owning households. Less than 100 of these whacked out fuckjobs in the last century.
How the hell does 100 disturbed people outweigh 52 million households?
Before the Clinton ‘Scary gun ban’ I read something that less than one hundredth of one percent of crimes were committed with assault weapons. During the ban the number did not fall, after the ban expired the rate of assault weapon misuse did not go up. Nothing will ever stop a madman from doing what ever his sick twisted mind compels him to do. Short of locking up every whack job in the nation, there is no way to stop them.
PS The Conn. shooters mother used guns as a way to bond with her severally antisocial son. That was good thinking, No?
Two simple voting rules that would re-establish this country in one voting cycle: 1. Two terms of anything is enough. 2. Never vote for a democrat.
2nd amendment was NEVER about hunting. HOLY SHIT, THESE POLITICIANS…….
I dont see it getting through the Senate or House….
However I have no doubt Dear Leader will use an Executive Order to fuck it all up. Either have EPA or ATF or some such agency regulate the fuck-all out it.
@21
He pretty much said he would (not that him saying he’s going to do something means much…). He said this weekend that he’d do everything in his power to make sure nothing like this would happen again.
Manchin is usually a level-headed guy who is NOT a knee-jerk lib. In fact, his election ads–which ticked off libs–was to fire a rifle in one and cock it in another. He is a decent fellow, I believe, an NRA member, and may reconsider his position when someone works up a bill. We’ll see.
17: They aint getting our guns without a fight.
If Manchin didn’t cave, West by Gawd Virginia’s coal industry was going to suffer a fatal case of EPA.
With Manchin you get Reid – ’nuff said.
Meant to say something on Jonn’s post with the gun safe. I am going to say something a bit heretical here.
Sometimes being a responsible gun owner means not owning a gun or, at least, not having one in the house. When you live with a mentally ill teenager/adult, you should not have a gun in the house. This kid was smart by all accounts. All he had to do was see the combination once. I know the woman liked to shoot and kept them for protection, but when one lives with someone who is not mentally well, that is a sacrifice you have to make.
@26 I don’t see that as heretical. I see that as personal responsibility. I fully support the 2nd amendment. My whole family has had gun training (barring my five year old daughter). We don’t own a gun. We have curious a 13 year old who has friends in and out of our home all the time. I just don’t want to be that responsible for a weapon and other people’s kids not to mention my children around that weapon even locked up, so we don’t own a gun.
So where does the nation find out about tragedies like the school shooting in CT? Washington Post? CNN? Fox? MSNBC? Since last week, that is the only story above the fold. So why is that? I checked the main page for those four sites and I see advertising for Volkswagen, ATT, Vanguard, Lending Tree, LifeLock Ultimate, BASF, Ameritrade, AdChoices, and BankRate.com. Those companies advertise to make money and they pay for that space based on clicks. A big story generates a lot of clicks. The national news outlets put that story above the fold because it attracts clicks and clicks are how news sites generate revenue. Seems to me we keep hearing that we should want to be famous. I do not want to be famous but I hear it a lot. The people who create these tragedies see that the last bozo was all everyone talked about for a week — they were famous. You might say infamous but one part of being crazy is that you can’t tell the difference. For a very small number of people, killing a bunch of people will make them famous and they think that famous would be better than what they are now. Seems to me one problem is that we get our news from a place whose “news values” are partly determined by advertising revenue. The news media makes these people famous for money. Suppose that the media didn’t print anything, would that stop the murders? No, some people will commit mass murder even if they don’t get famous. Stopping the print does not stop the events so I cannot prove that the media aggravates the problem. Suppose that everyone was armed — like in Israel — would there still be murder? Sure. So the opposite is also true, I cannot prove that arming everyone will prevent these tragedies. What right do we give up to avoid making mass murderers famous? What right do we give up to disarm the population? Can we try an experiment? If the experiment causes harm, can we reverse it? Since you have stuck with me… Read more »
#26 Susan: sounds like you possess the right to choose, and have made a choice that suits for now. No heresy in being free. Except in the US of A.
#28 Richard: yes – mass murder is brought to you by banks, restaurants, and capitalism. Day 1: journalists are categorically incorrect on facts, but the ad revenue is up. Day 2: corrects Day 1’s misreporting and ad revenue is through the roof. Day 3: presents actual, verifiable facts, and ad sellers can’t fit any more advertisements into the 24-hour news cycle. Day 4: squirrel, and ads are booming.
I wonder the cost per tear from a news anchor’s eye?
Given that Manchin is a a member of the NRA, could someone in West Virginia smack him in the back of the head every time he says “assault weapon.” I honestly can’t remember the last time a genuine assault rifle was used in one of these shooting sprees.
Hmmmm. I forgot. My Ruger 10/22 is classified by the Blood Dancing Anti’s as an “assault rifle”.
Never vote for a democrat. First rule. I can’t support anyone who supports the current democrat party platform and beliefs. Manchin may be a nice guy, NRA, gun owner, and all that, but he’s still a democrat.
I voted against friends that were running on the Democrat ticket. Why? Well, they wanted Obozo to win so I voted straight Republican and will again. Never vote for a Democrat. Never.